Americans Died, Obama Lied!

Vipassana

, my focus started to shift pretty quickly again into what
capabilities do we need to find the perpetrators

Well at least those who did this have been punished, at least we have that small thread of something positive being done........

Vipassana
reply to post by Helious

 

Where is it quoted and documented? Show me? Find a direct quote if it is so freely available and post it. surely I am not the only one who actually bothered to read the declassified documents?

Sorry no. The post I made offered two statements. Those two statements are completely true, accurate and factual. The challenge for you is to disprove them if you claim otherwise. Your continued rhetorical gymnastics will not save you from the fact that you are unable to do that. Your position in this debate is weak, unsubstantiated and more importantly, completely contrary to the facts.

If you can not disprove the two simple statements of fact I offered, you really need to stop.

I'll refresh your memory.

So now you're trying to spin partisan politics into factual statements made by those involved? Fair enough if you honestly believe that. Stay with with me for one more thing.

Please show me, based on what you are claiming that the two following statements are not true. If you can do this, I promise to take your argument more seriously.

1.) The Obama administration and Pentagon were briefed that there was an active terror attack on their Benghazi embassy in the earliest hours of the attack and despite advice from military assets more capable of assessing response time, military effectiveness and capability, the Pentagon (AKA White House) would not authorize the recommended military action to try and preserve American lives.

2.) Obvious, proven lies were told by the Obama administration to not only cover up the true scope of the attack but the very nature of what the attack was, despite having credible knowledge that it was something completely different. The attack was terrorism, something this administration and the last has sworn a war on at all costs including our personal freedoms yet this administration would have you believe it was something else, despite being told terrorism was exactly what it was, from the very beginning.

Now, tell me what about those two statements is disingenuous or partisan.

reply to post by Helious


okay so you say "the Pentagon (AKA White House) would not authorize the recommended military action to try and preserve American lives." You provide no evidence of this.

Here is evidence refuting this statement, coming straight from the department of defense website:

"The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound...

The DOD timeline records that in the first hours following the initial attack, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred first with the president, and shortly after with senior officials including Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who leads U.S. Africa Command. Africom’s area of responsibility includes Libya.
During those meetings, the official said, Panetta verbally ordered two fleet antiterrorism security team, or FAST, platoons to prepare to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain. The secretary also issued verbal prepare-to-deploy orders for a U.S. European Command special operations force then training in Central Europe and a second special operations force based in the United States.
At 6:30 p.m. EDT, according to the timeline, a six-person security team, including two DOD members, left the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for Benghazi.
The official noted the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center staff, within hours of the attack, began planning support and contingency operations with transportation and special operations experts, as well as with representatives from the four services and Africa, Europe and Central commands. By 8:39 p.m., the official said, the command center had started issuing written orders for the forces the secretary had alerted....

As the timeline makes clear, the official said, the evacuation took place before the FAST platoons or special operations forces arrived, although all were converging on Libya -- noting repeatedly that DOD leaders lacked a clear picture of enemy, civilian and American positions in the area."

IF you read this, you will see that not only did the Pentagon make a response, but that that response was elaborate in scope.

Your 2nd statement says: "The attack was terrorism, something this administration and the last has sworn a war on at all costs including our personal freedoms yet this administration would have you believe it was something else, despite being told terrorism was exactly what it was, from the very beginning. "

I will admit that in the two week aftermath the administration did put forward the idea that that the attack was actually a response to the anti islam video. But after those 2 weeks were over the administration changed course and accurately portrayed that it was a terrorist event:

www.cnsnews.com...

Even recently the administration has put forth numerous statements suggesting that it was a terrorist attack.

Is that good enough for you?

Yeah keep blaming Republicans for Benghazi.

It really just shows how WRONG some people are.

The current administraion owns Benghazi.

In more ways than one.

Read it or don't.

n a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Pay attention:

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Take a drink from the fountain of knowledge or continue to worship at the church of political dogma.

From the attack on Libya, and the US government for whatever reason not fathoming there might be retribution.

To the massive failure of the State Department, and the potus during zero hour in Benghazi.

Anyone trying to blame the Republicans for Benghazi, and dismissing the events that happened is straight up, wrong.

Vipassana
reply to post by Helious

 

okay so you say "the Pentagon (AKA White House) would not authorize the recommended military action to try and preserve American lives." You provide no evidence of this.

Here is evidence refuting this statement, coming straight from the department of defense website:

"The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound...

The DOD timeline records that in the first hours following the initial attack, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred first with the president, and shortly after with senior officials including Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who leads U.S. Africa Command. Africom’s area of responsibility includes Libya.
During those meetings, the official said, Panetta verbally ordered two fleet antiterrorism security team, or FAST, platoons to prepare to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain. The secretary also issued verbal prepare-to-deploy orders for a U.S. European Command special operations force then training in Central Europe and a second special operations force based in the United States.
At 6:30 p.m. EDT, according to the timeline, a six-person security team, including two DOD members, left the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for Benghazi.
The official noted the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center staff, within hours of the attack, began planning support and contingency operations with transportation and special operations experts, as well as with representatives from the four services and Africa, Europe and Central commands. By 8:39 p.m., the official said, the command center had started issuing written orders for the forces the secretary had alerted....

As the timeline makes clear, the official said, the evacuation took place before the FAST platoons or special operations forces arrived, although all were converging on Libya -- noting repeatedly that DOD leaders lacked a clear picture of enemy, civilian and American positions in the area."

IF you read this, you will see that not only did the Pentagon make a response, but that that response was elaborate in scope.

Your 2nd statement says: "The attack was terrorism, something this administration and the last has sworn a war on at all costs including our personal freedoms yet this administration would have you believe it was something else, despite being told terrorism was exactly what it was, from the very beginning. "

I will admit that in the two week aftermath the administration did put forward the idea that that the attack was actually a response to the anti islam video. But after those 2 weeks were over the administration changed course and accurately portrayed that it was a terrorist event:

www.cnsnews.com...

Even recently the administration has put forth numerous statements suggesting that it was a terrorist attack.

Is that good enough for you?

No, it's not good enough. The department of defense, a branch of the federal government and the Obama administration are the ones that have been caught red handed telling lies about the entire incident.

The statements on record that carry merit are from people involved personally in the incident that contradict what the state Department, Department of Justice and the White House have said.

Now, that being the case, it is important to note that one of two factions have been proven beyond doubt to have lied about almost everything regarding Benghazi. So, who are we supposed to believe in the light of conflicting testimony, those who have nothing to gain by lying and may be actually destroying their military and political careers by testifying under oath to Congress or the Obama administration who has been proven to have lied about the entire ordeal from the start?

You tell me.

reply to post by Helious


Okay will you show me where to find information or quotes from those "personally involved"?

And I'm certainly not blaming republicans for Benghazi if that is what the previous poster is insinuating. No I absolutely believe it was Islamic extremists. And as for the events of May 2012, months before the attack, the administration probably should have maintained a stronger security force. But operating a DC-3 from Tripoli would have cost millions more than the cars that went to Vienna. Millions

Vipassana
reply to post by Helious

 

Okay will you show me where to find information or quotes from those "personally involved"?

And I'm certainly not blaming republicans for Benghazi if that is what the previous poster is insinuating. No I absolutely believe it was Islamic extremists. And as for the events of May 2012, months before the attack. The war was over and America had no interest in leaving a large roving security force inside Libya.

Absolutely, you see, I despise Conservatives as much as I do Liberals. I don't think either faction has American citizens best interests in mind when making and keeping legislation. My problem is with lawless government who thinks legislation only applies to the population and not to them. Our country was founded to erase that type of mentality and ensure that all men are equal with the same rights and responsibilities and disgracing those ideals, really pisses me off.

Different names, relocation, threats?

Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away. They said they were trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge.
Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly.


Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Some assets were a mile away..........

Multiple Stand Down Orders?

For Gods sake, the Deputy Chief acting at the time said in Congressional hearings all of the things I said, what more do you need?

Honestly

The White House negligently and knowingly effected inaction on their part and then actively and purposefully lied in order to hide their crimes.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


He isn't the first president who lied and people died, and he won't be the last.

-President Truman lied when he said the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dropped on a "military Target." Hundreds and thousands of civilians died. He also lied about the war in Korea stating it was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Over 50,000 Americans died.

-Eisenhower lied about spy flights over the Soviet Union, even after a pilot was shot down. He lied about the U.S. involvement in a coup that overthrew the government in Guatemala, and put in place a military junta that took thousands of lives.

-Kennedy lied to the nation about the U.S. involvement of the failed invasion in Cuba.

-Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all repeatedly denied the American military was involved in the repeated bombings of Vietnam, killing thousands of civilians.

-Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin

-Nixon deceived the nation about the secret bombing of Cambodia.

-Reagan lied about his secret and illegal support of the Contras in Nicaragua. He lied about the importance of Granada in order to justify the American invasion of that small island.

-George H.W. Bush -he deceived the nation about his real interest in the Persian Gulf, pretending to deep anguish about the fate of Kuwait, but actually more concerned about enhancing American power in Saudi Arabia and controlling the oil deposits of the region.

-George W Bush - Lied about the involvement of Iraq in 9/11 and the notorious WMD's. Thousands died.

So really, the record of lying to the American people has a pretty good track record among presidents. Can we really believe any politician? Just add Obama to the list.

On Presidential Liars

Vipassana
reply to post by Sublimecraft

 

Well, at least the economy is improving and we aren't spending trillions on useless wars anymore. Compare that to the last administration officials who walk freely after they were actually proven to have lied about the intel leading to the Iraq war and propped up the banks that crashed the economy. Just sayin

LOL - that's too funny mate.

So, just to be clear here, you are of the opinion that [insert political party of choice] is responsible for [insert issue] and that you are not actually being played by a system designed to make you think you actually have a choice in what happens when in reality, just like my country, it actually matters NOT whether you vote or not.

The decision is already made.

Democraps or Republican'ts = 2 sides of the same coin.

Try this at the next election, instead of voting for Hillary, vote for an actual cow.

Your entire political system is a joke - and you know it.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Why lie? Well, from the start, I thought the whole thing was planned, to kill the ambassador, because someone from OUR side wanted him out of the way for some reason. Something he knew, something he wouldn't agree to, maybe. Still think the same thing. Honestly, if it was found that the weapons used came from us, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

reply to post by Vipassana


I have spent the last little while reading all the comments on this thread, I quite enjoyed all the debates peticularly between Vipassana and Helious.

As an outsider looking in on your conversation I find my self taking the side of Vipassana, why? Well its really simple. Vipassana has gone out of their way to present fact after fact, link after link, qoute after qoute from information presented by the OP and other sources to prove their point. If Obama didnt mobolize forces, then why does it say that he gave the ok? Vipassana displayed it perfectly for everyone to see. Then people still say that obama lied.

Then all arguements against what Vipassana said are basically repeated.

Vipassan is the only person making anysence on this ENTIRE THREAD

Some people just love to try to change the topic of discussion. You know who you are! The topic of this thread is simple...OBAMA LIED and AMERICANS DIED. Trying to derail the thread and not keeping to the subject of my original post only means one thing to me and that is that these individuals do not wish to discuss the facts. They are only here to distract and divert attention from the truth. The lie is that Benghazi was about a YouTube Video. Apparently it wasn't. Obama, Hillary and their minions said it was...repeatedly...on TV. That is the lie and the topic.

Obama lied to the American people. Americans died and all Obama cared about was covering this up to protect and support himself. THAT IS THE TOPIC. Now...if you want to at least try to stay on topic, maybe we should expand this discussion to other lies by Obama and his administration. That, at least, would be on topic.

You know...things like "You can keep your insurance", "You can keep your doctor", "Your health care will be less expensive", etc. Feel free to discuss those lies but again...Please stay on topic instead of trying to divert this thread.

If the mods would like to scold someone here...I wouldn't be opposed.

Oh...and we are apparently on the ATS Home Page! Regardless of your view...thanks for getting this topic the recognition it deserves!

reply to post by Helious


From my experience in flying QRF missions in a blackhawk I can tell you that this team, with an air tanker and a properly configured pair of hawks, could have been there in a matter of 2-3 hours.

Windows closed with those RR engines or the t706 engines they could have done 150 KIAS all the way there.

There was no reason to board a C130. It's not that far from Tripoli to Bengazi. They might not have even needed a tanker around.

reply to post by snypwsd

If Obama didnt mobolize forces, then why does it say that he gave the ok?

Actually, Vipassana said this:

If you read the declassified documents you will clearly find that the President not only DID NOT order a stand down, but that he ordered a swift and strong response

Do you want to tackle this one?

Just what was Obama's swift and strong response?

Or did his 'order' for a swift and strong response go unheeded by the Pentagon. If so, did heads roll because no one listened to the Commander in Chief's orders???

WeAreAWAKE

Vipassana
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

Where are the links to these declassified documents?

The term "terrorist attack" is rather vague at this point. The Bush administration overused it in order to spread fear, now when it is underused by the Obama administration people call foul.

Intelligence goes awry in the heat of the moment, but I have yet to see any proof that the Obama administration deliberately mislead the public or congress regarding the Benghazi issue.

Lets keep this simple...a "Terrorist Attack" of any type and by any definition isn't simply people "upset about a video". That is the only proof needed of the lie. Obama was told "Terrorist Attack" and change it to be about a video by non-terrorists. Simple. As far as where the document are...I'm sure we will see them shortly.

c'mon, I heard it directly from the president that it was an act of terror, he was on TV saying it....they were trying to figure out the "WHY" part of it....but, somehow, because he didn't INSTANTLY KNOW exactly what it was about, you right-wingers think that it's some type of big conspiracy...Darrell Issa has beat this horse to death in the numerous hearings...
ambassador Stevens was repeatedly warned of the instability and danger of making trips to Benghazi, he was even warned about the more heavily fortified embassy being at risk in Tripoli, but his arrogance and cavalier attitude pushed aside cautious restraint. his instincts and better judgment failed, and it cost him and the others their lives

reply to post by jimmyx

ambassador Stevens was repeatedly warned of the instability and danger of making trips to Benghazi, he was even warned about the more heavily fortified embassy being at risk in Tripoli, but his arrogance and cavalier attitude pushed aside cautious restraint. his instincts and better judgment failed, and it cost him and the others their lives

So if I get mugged walking down a street at night after I leave work, it is my fault for leaving work? Or is it my fault for having a job?

Here is another link for everyone, I believe from the same documents and NBC: Benghazi Attacks Were Preventable
nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...

And of course, FoxNew.com is running with this headline:

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" Because Senate probe finds Al Qaeda WAS involved, Americans died and IT WAS PREVENTABLE

reply to post by neo96


Republicans are also to blame for Benghazi. We never should have intervened to support the rebels against Qaddafi in the first place, many of us did not support it and Obama might have gave in to pressure from the anti-war activists if the Republicans weren't also pressuring him to intervene. This destabilized the country and allowed extremist groups that were suppressed under Qaddafi to grow and carry out the attacks.